write_noteCreate or overwrite a Markdown note with given content at a specified path, enabling AI clients to save notes to a NAS.
Create or overwrite a Markdown note with the given content.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Path to the note within the connection, e.g. /notes/todo.md | |
| content | Yes | ||
| connection | Yes | The connection id (from list_connections) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a write operation but does not mention permissions, side effects, error behavior, or return values. This is minimal and leaves significant ambiguity for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource. No filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple write tool with three parameters, the description and schema cover the essential intent but lack details on expected output, error handling, and content specifics. This leaves some gaps for an agent to fully understand the call.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 67% (path and connection have descriptions; content does not). The description adds the 'Markdown' context for content, but does not elaborate on content format or connection requirements beyond what the schema provides. It adds some value but does not fully compensate for the missing content description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb 'Create or overwrite' on a 'Markdown note' with content, which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like read_note or list_notes. The resource and action are unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to use write_note instead of read_note or list_notes, leaving the agent to infer from sibling names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.